[1] The presumption power of registration under the Act on Special Measures for the Restoration of Land Owned and Undeveloped within the Gu, and the degree of proof and proof to reverse the registration

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which recognized the reversal of the presumption of registration under the provision of paragraph (1) on the ground that the burden of proof

[1] Even if it is found that there is a separate person in the land for which registration of preservation of ownership has been made pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Restoration, Registration, Preservation, etc. of Unclaimed Land in the old several regions (Law No. 3627 of Dec. 31, 1982, and December 31, 1991), the registration is completed in accordance with due process prescribed in the same Act, and is presumed to have been registered in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. Thus, in a party seeking the reversal of such presumption, he/she shall assert and prove that the letter of guarantee, based on which the registration was made, was forged or falsely prepared, or that it was not a lawful registration due to other reasons. The degree of proof of the falsity of the letter of guarantee to reverse the presumption of registration shall not be sufficient to the extent of conviction of the judge, but at least to prove that the substantial contents of the statement are not true.

[2] [1] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which recognized the reversal of the presumption of registration power under paragraph (1) on the ground that the burden of proof was

[1] Article 186 of the Civil Act, Articles 4 and 15 of the Act on Special Measures for the Restoration, Registration, Preservation, etc. of Unclaimed Land within the Life Stalone Areas (Law No. 3627, Dec. 31, 1982; Act No. 3627, Dec. 31, 1991); Articles 186 and 15 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 186 of the Civil Act; Articles 4 and 15 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Restoration, of Undeveloped Land within the Life Stalone Areas (Act No. 3627, Dec. 31, 1982; Act No. 3627, Dec. 31, 191); Article 261

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da5826 delivered on October 26, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3172), Supreme Court Decision 93Da57490 delivered on March 11, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1185), Supreme Court Decision 93Da12176 delivered on October 21, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 3063)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Kim Jong-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Seo-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 94Na1108 delivered on October 14, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

The Defendants’ grounds of appeal are examined.

In the case of a parcel of land for which registration of preservation of ownership has been made pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for Restoration, Registration, Preservation, etc. of Unclaimed Land within several regions (Act No. 3627), the registration is completed in accordance with the lawful procedures prescribed in the same Act, even if there is any other person to whom the land was assessed. As such, the registration is presumed to have been completed in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. As such, in the case of a party seeking the reversal of the presumption, a letter of guarantee, which forms the basis of the registration, is presumed to have been forged or falsely prepared, or is not legally registered for other reasons. The degree of proof of the falsity of a letter of guarantee to reverse the presumption of registration, does not require the degree of conviction of the judge, but at least, it is necessary to prove that the substantial contents of the certificate are not true (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da12176, Oct. 21, 1994).

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that Defendant 1 purchased the above land from Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 4 on December 24, 1983 with a warranty that he actually purchased the land of this case from Nonparty 5, and attached it on January 4, 1984, upon receiving an application for the registration of the owner restoration under the Act on Special Measures, on May 23, 1984, and completed the registration of ownership preservation on December 24, 1984, the court below stated that Defendant 1 himself did not disclose the evidence that it owned the land of this case in the criminal case related to this case, and that it was impossible to prove that Defendant 1 purchased the above land from Nonparty 5 on October 3, 1960, which was the basis of the above preservation registration, and that the above Defendants purchased the land of this case from Nonparty 1, his father at the time of inheritance, and that it did not constitute the above assertion that the above Defendants purchased it from the above Defendant 1 and the above Defendants did not know that it was unlawful.

In other words, even if Defendant 1 stated in a criminal case related to this case that he did not have any evidentiary document that the land in this case is owned by himself, it is not the person who has no ownership. The neighboring land including this case is a water welfare district and its cadastral record, etc. was destroyed due to the incident of 6.25 incidents. In light of the above defendant's investigation agency's failure to present all documents, such as a registration certificate of the right to the land in this case, the plaintiffs' statement in the above defendant's investigation agency is insufficient to consider the above defendant's substantive contents as grounds for suspecting that the real contents of the guarantee in the above preservation registration are not true. The above guarantee certificate is written as the seller's acquisition after the death of the above non-party 5, or the process of changing rights claimed by the defendants does not clearly assert and prove the above process, even if the above special measures do not coincide with the contents of the guarantee certificate, and in light of the fact that the plaintiffs bears the burden of proof as to the falsity of the guarantee certificate, it is also insufficient to consider the substantive contents of the guarantee certificate as grounds for doubt.

Rather, according to the records of this case, the residents of Won-ri, the non-party 4 and the non-party 8, the non-party 9, and the non-party 7, the owner of the land adjacent to the land of this case, who were designated guarantor, stated that they owned and cultivated the land of this case from the Japanese colonial era, while even according to all evidence inside the plaintiffs, the non-party 1 or their descendants did not find any private matter carried out as the owner of the land of this case. Furthermore, according to Articles 4 and 8 through 12 of the above Act and Articles 8 through 12 of the above Act, when they file an application for the restoration of ownership with the competent authority along with a document or guarantee that they prove that the owner of the land of this case is the owner of the land of this case, the competent authority shall publish the application in a daily newspaper for three months or more, and shall, after the investigation of the ownership of the land of this case, submit the above land to the competent authority for the examination of the owner of this case (Article 8).

Ultimately, the court below determined that the presumption power of registration of ownership preservation by Defendant 1 was reversed on the grounds as stated in its holding, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption power of legitimate presumption of ownership preservation, which was made under the Act on Special Measures as seen earlier, and such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the ground of appeal on this point is with merit.

Therefore, without examining any other grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)